Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 53 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3345 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

NON COMPLIANT NEW EV INSTALLATIONS

John Peckham
I was sent some information from the ECA concerning an audit undertaken by the Office of Low Emission Vehicles.


The sites inspected were those installed by "qualified" and "registered" installers claiming the OLEV subsidy.


0.8% were found to be dangerous (C1), 19.6% Potentially Dangerous (C2) and 25.6% requires improvement (C3). That makes 46% of new EV installations by qualified and registered persons to be non-compliant.


Am I the only person who thinks this is an utter disgrace?





  • 0
    The important bit is that any residual charge is removed slowly, to prevent a spark with enough energy to ignite fuel vapour. Connecting a low z Earth is very dangerous in a fuel vapour environment. Of course, this is completely ignored as cars do not have fuel vapour around them in any quantity except when being fueled and Hybrids are not charged when being fueled either, although I am sure some bright spark will think of that! Fully conductive hoses would be equally dangerous, putting a good spark in the fuel filler. I prefer diesel, much safer.
  • 0
    I  think we are all more or less agreed actually. If anything connecting a double insulated charger to a hybrid car may arguably  be slightly more or less likely to spark than connecting a solidly earthed one, but unless you are re-fuelling at the same time, the risk is very low, earthed cable or not.

    Which is just as well, or other things that could generate sparks, like bumping into metal fence posts or clipping the kerb edge  would carry a similar risk, while luckily cars only explode in minor collisions in the films due to the hard work of the special effects teams.

    I suspect that if cars had not been common for the last 100 years or so, and I turned up now proposing a vehicle with a fantastic new engine that combined liquid fuel with explosive vapour in a single skin tank 3 inches off the road surface pumped under pressure through rubber hoses,   high voltages and whirling belts behind a non-interlocked cover and a hot exhaust pipe exposed to touch at the outside I'd be blocked on health and safety grounds.
  • 0
    And what really is the problem with a wee spark?

    When I was a lad, every car had at least three continuously sparking devices, the dynamo, the points and the distributor, and the starter motor added a fourth when it was time to go. I never heard of any of these causing a fire.

  • 0
    Harry Macdonald:

    And what really is the problem with a wee spark?

    When I was a lad, every car had at least three continuously sparking devices, the dynamo, the points and the distributor, and the starter motor added a fourth when it was time to go. I never heard of any of these causing a fire.


    You forgot the spark plugs, which do create fires, albeit controlled ones. ?


    In fact petrol is not as easy to ignite as most people imagine. Think of a petrol lighter - they need a wick. The spark ignites petrol vapour, which is also the form of the petrol by the time that it reaches the combustion chamber.


  • 0
    mapj1:


    I suspect that if cars had not been common for the last 100 years or so, and I turned up now proposing a vehicle with a fantastic new engine that combined liquid fuel with explosive vapour in a single skin tank 3 inches off the road surface pumped under pressure through rubber hoses,   high voltages and whirling belts behind a non-interlocked cover and a hot exhaust pipe exposed to touch at the outside I'd be blocked on health and safety grounds.


    Absolutely Mike! On the other hand if you had turned up 100 years ago with an EV and associated charging proposal of the type currently in place and had PME been the earthing system of the day, they would more than likely have thrown caution to the wind. After a while they would have counted the dead and injured and responded if they thought the situation intolerable. We take the opposite stance now and we have to foresee the likely outcomes and probably over-engineer to counter risks that may never occur in reality. Still, I am a dedicated advocate of the modern approach even if it does seem like walking through treacle at times.


  • 0
    I find myself on both sides of arguments like that far to often for my enjoyment. Equally 100 year old electrics was something else....
  • 0
    They were made of sterner stuff in those days. None of yer namby-pamby 48 V!
  • 0
    I  agree you need some nerve to drive  a 100 year old car, electric or petrol,  though note that a modern electric car is also a few hundred volts DC and hundred amps or more on the traction side as well.

    Part of the problem is that the automotive electric culture for a long time has used 12V or 24V, single insulation and uses cable temperature ratings we would not accept for a long life in a permanent installation (015 degree PVC anyone ? ).

    In some ways the environment is very demanding, high vibration, being parked out in the sun, or the snow,  or wet , and yet the approach to installation quality can be  quite sloppy by mains standards.

  • 0
    mapj1:

    I  agree you need some nerve to drive  a 100 year old car, electric or petrol ...


    Not quite for the petrol version. Don't forget that Bentley celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. ?


  • 0
    "You forgot the spark plugs, which do create fires, albeit controlled ones"

    And anyone who has tried to start an old car on a cold day will know that the spark plugs are not as effective as they should be either.

Community Rules & Guidelines